Your video game hot take(s) thread

[meiam]

IMO cyberpunk 2077 is way better than witcher 3. TW3 quest being repetitive is not a joke, outside of story quest all of them are just the same. It's an open world game that seriously suffer from being open world, environments are repetitive and the world is mostly empty, there's nothing to explore, all the side quests are just boring and the distribution of quest/enemy is all wrong with high level stuff in the middle of low level stuff for no reason. Combat is really boring, not like "its boring for a game that get so much praise" but just straight up boring, the optimal strategy is button mashing, that's it, that's the entire game. Magics aren't worth using (except the one that make you invincible which is just broken), explosive aren't worth using, potion aren't worth using. Just button mash. Looting isn't intersting, there's no fun effect, it's all stats boost. Enemy lack variety and are all dealt with the same way (spoiler, button mash). The game has you use two swords, but there's no difference between them. There's a talent tree but no matter how you buid your character you'll always play the same (you know it, button mash).

All witcher 3 has is good graphic and writing, make it into a tight 10 hours experience with no combat and it would deserves its praise, but as is, its 6/10 at most (and I'd say CB2077 would be an 8/10),

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm gonna do another one, why not:

Yes, The Witcher 3 is that great. GOAT. Deserving of all the accolades.
I am considering this a "hot take" because there's been a backlash from people sick of all the hype and praise and I get it, it's annoying. But lately I'm seeing, like, oh it's shit combat and oh we always AHCHCHOOLLY knew that CDProjRed was shit because lol Cyberpunk and all that.

And, like... no, no, we were right, it's great.
In fact, I haven't seen an action adventure open world fantasy RPG that even comes close, even by reputation or consensus opinion. I would go so far to say that I don't even know how it can be improved upon from a world-setting and narrative perspective. It's a huge game but not TOO huge that it's overwhelming (yes, I agree that the main plot ending is paced really weird though). But this game's specific quest structure, world design and just general "flow" of cut scenes, gameplay and mechanics come together better than anything I've ever experience in a Big Open World.

And this is with all the criticism even I have of it (shit loot and XP/leveling system). As a "pure RPG" it's crap but as an action/adventure/open-word it is incomparable, and that kind of game hits a broader audience that's why we love it so much.

The problem with Witcher 3 is that it isn't fun to actually play. CDPR literally had to patch running around because it was shit, and it's still rather shit after the patch. If the game was just like an old school adventure game that was just talking to people and experiencing the story (similar to a TellTale game), then it would've been a way better game and tons shorter. When they showed off the griffin fight at an E3 that was super simplistic looking, I didn't get why anyone was hyped for that, did ya'll not play Dragon's Dogma and see how a griffin fight is supposed to be? I've yet to see CDPR actually make a game with good gameplay so I'm not going to ever get hyped over a game that a dev hasn't proven themselves to make at least one good game. I predicted Cyberpunk to be shit long before it launched because Witcher 3 from a game development standpoint is actually a very simple game (there's a lot of it, but it's all simple), there's basically no dynamics or interconnected systems or enemy AI (basically just rush the player character). Even the pathing AI was pretty shit in Witcher 3. Cyberpunk was promising a far far far more advanced game with systems CDPR had no experience in like a 1st-person shooter (no experience) that's an immersive sim (no experience) with branching storyline (very little experience as, at least, Witcher 3 is a very static story). An immersive sim needs dynamic interconnected systemic systems to work and CDPR has no experience in that at all and it's one of the hardest things to do from a development standpoint. So I wasn't shocked at all they couldn't even do something like traffic.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Okay, here's a generalized hot take: I don't give half a pan-fried fuck how great a game's story is if I despise the gameplay. I will never play Undertale because I hate bullet-hell games; Dark Souls got dropped in my digital dumpster because the combat shits in your mouth and expects you to thank it for the experience; the Witcher series lost me at the first game because the combat was atrocious, and I have zero investment in any of the sequels. "Game" is half of the term "video game", and I refuse to suffer through gameplay I can't stand to get through a story. Elsewise we might as well go back to FMV cutscenes with QTEs.

 

[BrawlMan]

Okay, here's a generalized hot take: I don't give half a pan-fried fuck how great a game's story is if I despise the gameplay.

Same. This became really apparent for me by mid generation 7.

 

[Dalisclock]

I stan Assassins Creed

Ok, ok, look, I know all the criticisms. I even agree with pretty much all of them. But I don't care- I still love it.
To me, the games were always about parkouring and murdering around a beautifully rendered historical setting world. Nothing else really matters. It's the only franchise that offers this specific gameplay, which I happen to really really love. Therefore they should keep making them and I will keep playing and replaying them.

With that in mind, lemme address some of the franchise criticism in a non-productive way:

- The story is stupid and doesn't make sense, with the Isu and the apples and all that crap.
Correct. It's stupid and silly, like a Dan Brown novel. Makes it perfect for an action game where you play through conspiracies with secret organizations.

- The games are way too long now
Not if you like the gameplay, and if it's the only franchise that offers it. Yes, I will agree with everyone that the "Ubisoft model" of maps with icons and 1000 of the same missions is a cancer. I will never play a Far Cry game because I don't like first-person shooters. But I don't mind clearing the AC maps because of the setting, and the fun movement and fighting mechanics, and it looks so pretty.

- The gameplay is shit
*shrugs* I dunno, honestly I have seen this criticism about literally every single AAA game franchise except maybe.... Forza? I dig it.

I started a thread about AC series a little while back. Feel free to check it out and add commentary if you like

 

[Ezekiel]

I don't feel like watching a twelve minute video to find out if there is some nightmare reason for her lip being so high above her teeth in the thumbnail, but she's so ugly at times, and pretty average looking the rest of the time. I just tried that in front of the mirror and couldn't. I remember being so disappointed when they dropped the original character model.

At least, I was disappointed until I played the game and discovered how bad it is.

 

[Ezekiel]

 

[Casual Shinji]

Okay, here's a generalized hot take: I don't give half a pan-fried fuck how great a game's story is if I despise the gameplay. I will never play Undertale because I hate bullet-hell games; Dark Souls got dropped in my digital dumpster because the combat shits in your mouth and expects you to thank it for the experience; the Witcher series lost me at the first game because the combat was atrocious, and I have zero investment in any of the sequels. "Game" is half of the term "video game", and I refuse to suffer through gameplay I can't stand to get through a story. Elsewise we might as well go back to FMV cutscenes with QTEs.

In the past couple of years I've fully embraced my lizard brain without shame; if you're not entertaining me you can go away. If gameplay isn't fullfilling in the moment I don't care how important it is to the industry or how much the youtube gaming elitists praise it as "true gameplay". Whether it's Souls games, Undertale, Nier, or anything by Platinum, I'm done investing hours of my time in the hopes that I'll eventually get what everyone tells me is the most genius and pure gameplay. Sorry Disco Elysium, but I'd rather play more Horizon: Zero Dawn.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

In the past couple of years I've fully embraced my lizard brain without shame; if you're not entertaining me you can go away. If gameplay isn't fullfilling in the moment I don't care how important it is to the industry or how much the youtube gaming elitists praise it as "true gameplay". Whether it's Souls games, Undertale, Nier, or anything by Platinum, I'm done investing hours of my time in the hopes that I'll eventually get what everyone tells me is the most genuis and pure gameplay. Sorry Disco Elysium, but I'd rather play more Horizon: Zero Dawn.

I agree with this but I've recently added an exception clause: unless it's on Gamepass and it's short.
So I will try Disco Elysium if it ever is on Gamepass. Same with Outer Wilds, which is BELOVED, but I can't stand first person platforming/puzzle stuff.
Funny thing as I'm reading posts about the importance of gameplay though is that I actually like the games being listed as "bad" gameplay (Nier, Undertale, Souls, Witcher). Either people have wildly different ideas about what constitutes good or bad gameplay (for example, I just can't handle first-person sim or shooters) or I guess in the right mood I just push past the weaker gameplay if that setting is that good (the bullet hell sections of Undertale).

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

I started a thread about AC series a little while back. Feel free to check it out and add commentary if you like

Oh nice, for sure I will

 

[Chimpzy]

Maybe any resident completionists will have their jimmies rustled by this take, but...

... way I see it, a game is completed when I feel I've gotten all the entertainment out of it that I can.

Doesn't matter whether that's when I've done everything there is to do, or I watched the credits, or I drop it partways through because I don't like it.

Also means multiplayer and/or endless games with no definitive win state can be 'completed'

 

[Casual Shinji]

I agree with this but I've recently added an exception clause: unless it's on Gamepass and it's short.
So I will try Disco Elysium if it ever is on Gamepass. Same with Outer Wilds, which is BELOVED, but I can't stand first person platforming/puzzle stuff.
Funny thing as I'm reading posts about the importance of gameplay though is that I actually like the games being listed as "bad" gameplay (Nier, Undertale, Souls, Witcher). Either people have wildly different ideas about what constitutes good or bad gameplay (for example, I just can't handle first-person sim or shooters) or I guess in the right mood I just push past the weaker gameplay if that setting is that good (the bullet hell sections of Undertale).

What's good or bad gameplay is up to everyone to decide personally. If people enjoy the combat mechanics of Souls games and/or the feeling of defeating a Boss than I won't refute that.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Maybe any resident completionists will have their jimmies rustled by this take, but...

... way I see it, a game is completed when I feel I've gotten all the entertainment out of it that I can.

Doesn't matter whether that's when I've done everything there is to do, or I watched the credits, or I drop it partways through because I don't like it.

Also means multiplayer and/or endless games with no definitive win state can be 'completed'

Oh I like this one, because it's getting into semantics and pedantry, which is totally my jam.

I almost completely play games with narratives so a game is completed to me when I know the whole story. I used to equate completion with seeing the credits but like every game puts stuff after the credits now.
I'm an IT project manager so we have a phrase "the definition of done" where a development has to define what it means for a task to be done before we actually do it. Like is it done when we test it this way and it meets these requirements, or is it done when so-and-so signs off on it, etc. Similarly I have to define the definition of done of a game.

I can't use your definition because if I give up on a game I don't think I completed it, I just choose not to. Like Celeste and Ori and all these cute platformers that I quit half-way through because my hands cramp up and I get angry. I'm not completing them and I don't care.

Something like God of War (2018) is a funny one.
SPOILERS FOR GOD OF WAR
You "beat" the game, see the credits, yay. But then if you want you can go play the most challenging parts of the game including these super-tough valkyries, which for most also really means grinding through these extra levels for best gear, and it's like hours and hours of brutal challenge AFTER the freaking credits. And if you do all that. you actually do get a cut scene that is obviously canon. So to me, "completing" God of War means playing a lot after beating it.
And, you know, I kind of resent that kind of shit in games now.

 

[BrawlMan]

What's good or bad gameplay is up to everyone to decide personally. If people enjoy the combat mechanics of Souls games and/or the feeling of defeating a Boss than I won't refute that.

Exactly. It's why I don't ever get involved with overly long RPGs of any kind, MMOs, or GTA style open world games. Either the (constant) price of admission, pacing, or I don't find it good, satisfying, nor fun.

After posting in the sexism thread recently, I realized that there are people in the gaming sphere that don't know what satire means. I am not just talking critics, even regular gamers too. Or they try to just assume and justify a game is satire with out much to back up, or pull out of their asses. Even when it's apparently clear, the game does not have a message, and it is fan-service for the sake of fan-service. Easy Allies' Huber made the same mistake with Killer Is Dead in a discussion video. Which is odd, because Easy Allies are mostly made up of former staff from Game Trailers, And last I checked, they didn't have a high opinion of the game. For example, the gigolo "side missions"/mini-game is no statement nor parody of James Bond. It just plain fan-service to get the player off, and the only reason why the mini-game is even in there is due to Kawada Publishing forcing Grasshopper to put them in the game. It explains why certain parts of the game are rushed or not as refined in certain areas. Meaning had Kawada not done that, they would not be in the game to begin with. The game would have gotten better polish in other areas and even better all the more for it.

2013 showed how flip-flop and hypocritical the gaming review industry really is. Glad I already learned long ago not to hang on to their every word and make decisions for myself.

Battletoads Arcade is still the best in the Battletoads franchise.

Sony needs to do more than just third person action games. I know you want your characters to have faces and everything, but they're too focused on being "cinematic" or cinema-like. It's nauseating at time. Remember, you are video games, not movies. That is not meant as insult; it's a reminder to never forget where you came from. Sony has a couple of 3D Platformers...okay really one they ever bother with, but they got others they don't even bother with, because apparently Jak & Daxter, or Sly Copper are no longer "marketable" or not serious enough. Which is bullshit! If you can still fund Insomniac to make Ratchet & Clank, you can afford the others. Sony, you are pussies and cowards for abandoning Japanese gaming, your Japanese audience, and those that more than helped you get where you are you ungrateful bastards.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Oh I like this one, because it's getting into semantics and pedantry, which is totally my jam.

I almost completely play games with narratives so a game is completed to me when I know the whole story. I used to equate completion with seeing the credits but like every game puts stuff after the credits now.
I'm an IT project manager so we have a phrase "the definition of done" where a development has to define what it means for a task to be done before we actually do it. Like is it done when we test it this way and it meets these requirements, or is it done when so-and-so signs off on it, etc. Similarly I have to define the definition of done of a game.

I can't use your definition because if I give up on a game I don't think I completed it, I just choose not to. Like Celeste and Ori and all these cute platformers that I quit half-way through because my hands cramp up and I get angry. I'm not completing them and I don't care.

Something like God of War (2018) is a funny one.
SPOILERS FOR GOD OF WAR
You "beat" the game, see the credits, yay. But then if you want you can go play the most challenging parts of the game including these super-tough valkyries, which for most also really means grinding through these extra levels for best gear, and it's like hours and hours of brutal challenge AFTER the freaking credits. And if you do all that. you actually do get a cut scene that is obviously canon. So to me, "completing" God of War means playing a lot after beating it.
And, you know, I kind of resent that kind of shit in games now.

Wait, what cutscene would that be? Guessing something specific to NG+ because I don’t recall seeing anything special after Platinuming the game.

Speaking of cutscenes, most of them just plain suck. This is because most studios either lack the talent or the budget to implement them well, and they only end up taking the player out of better gameplay to watch something they’re more inclined to skip. It’s only getting more noticeable next to games like GoW that have evolved their presentation beyond the jarring effect of alternating between the two. If developers don’t know the difference, then they simply shouldn’t waste the players’ time with them and instead opt for text, artistic illustrations, or environmental storytelling.

 

[BrawlMan]

At least, I was disappointed until I played the game and discovered how bad it is.

That's been a constant problem with Ninja Theory games. Good details in environments, graphics, character design, and good story, but the gameplay always falter or is average. The story in DmC (2013) is awful and still sucks. It is still Ninja Theory's best gameplay to date, and even they needed the heavy help of Hideaki Itsuno to make it play decent. Then Itsuno and his team went back and fixed further in the Definitive Edition. NT had nothing to do with DE, other than promoting the game. Hellblade I've had interests in, but I am always waiting for a sale on physical at a cheap price. Amazon actually has it at $21.99, so I might pick the game up. From what I've seen and heard, the gameplay is nothing to write home about, but is functional. The main hook is the story and the mental instability of Senua. The game is even better when you have headphone equipped and listen to the voices in her head. You are either gonna love it or hate it.

Ninja Theory always felt like an animation studio that just happens to make games with flinging interests. Hellblade II looks to be more, but bigger. Hopefully they can add more weapon variety, a stance system, and better puzzles. I still wish NT the best of luck.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Maybe any resident completionists will have their jimmies rustled by this take, but...

... way I see it, a game is completed when I feel I've gotten all the entertainment out of it that I can.

Doesn't matter whether that's when I've done everything there is to do, or I watched the credits, or I drop it partways through because I don't like it.

Also means multiplayer and/or endless games with no definitive win state can be 'completed'

Ehnnnnn... I can see where you're coming from, shifting the POV from game content to personal entertainment value. Personally, I just say I CBF finishing a game because it wasn't worth the effort to continue (boredom, dealing with dumb shit, better things to do, whatever)... it stops people from mistaking my level of investment in the game and trying to discuss it with me.

 

[Ezekiel]

That's been a constant problem with Ninja Theory games. Good details in environments, graphics, character design, and good story, but the gameplay always falter or is average. The story in DmC (2013) is awful and still sucks. It is still Ninja Theory's best gameplay to date, and event they needed the heavy help of Hideaki Itsuno to make it play decent. Then Itsuno and his team went back and fixed further in the Definitive Edition. NT had nothing to do with DE, other than promoting the game. Hellblade I've had interests in, but I am always waiting for a sale on physical at a cheap price. Amazon actually has it at $21.99, so I might pick the game up. From what I've seen and heard, the gameplay is nothing to write home about, but is functional. The main hook is the story and the mental instability of Senua. The game is even better when you have headphone equipped and listen to the voices in her head. You are either gonna love it or hate it.

Ninja Theory always felt like an animation studio that just happens to make games with flinging interests. Hellblade II looks to be more, but bigger. Hopefully they can add more weapon variety, a stance system, and better puzzles. I still wish NT the best of luck.

Binaural recording is overrated. The rain in the main menu of Resident Evil 2 sounds more muffled with it on. For some reason, none of the games I've used it in, including Hellblade, were as impressive in terms of directional audio as the Virtual Barber Shop video and other YouTube demos.

I made it as far as the Trials of Odin (60 percent into the game?) before the game's crappy puzzle design stopped me. The story and the way it's told are bad.

Out of DmC, Enslaved and the two Heavenly Sword demos, I thought Hellblade was their worst game.

 

[BrawlMan]

The story and the way it's told are bad.

If you feel that. Many others don't. Most people actually like the story, but hate the gameplay or find it interferes with the story. I can't say I blame them.

 

[Inazuma1]

I finally broke down and got Cyberpunk 2077 during the winter sale. I was leary of it after seeing all the controversy, and knowing it was in development for nearly a decade, which is never a good sign. I'm having fun with it, but the amount of bugs and glitches still in the game made me start thinking it was a Bethesda game instead of CDPR. When I saw models drop spawn into the world A-posing and start walking normally when they hit ground while another NPC repeatedly walked into a wall I caught myself saying "Typical Bethesda," out loud.